Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I seek clarification from the Minister on the impact of the clause. I understand that if a constable identifies careless and inconsiderate driving that is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, under subsection (3) he will have the power to stop, seize and remove the motor vehicle. He must warn the driver—if that is possible—before he uses that power, and the vehicle's use must have continued after the

warning. So far, so good. The purpose of the clause is, therefore, to prevent a public nuisance at a particular time, which nobody could disagree with.

I want to clarify the impact of subsection (2). It states that a constable shall also have the power to seize and remove a vehicle

''where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

Is that provision designed to identify a case in which a constable had warned someone that his driving was inconsiderate and causing alarm, and had been unable to apprehend the vehicle because the person had driven off, but had seized it subsequently? Is that the purpose of the provision? If so, it is different from preventing a public nuisance from occurring. Presumably, the public nuisance had ended because the person had driven off yet, under the Bill, a sharp-eyed constable may notice the vehicle—which may have been used, in his view, some months previously to cause disturbance—and can seize and retain it. That seems different from dealing with the public nuisance when it happened. Will the Minister confirm whether I have understood the clause correctly?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I agree with the search for clarification carried out by the hon. Member for Lewes. I also want to explore a further issue. For a long time, there has been a substantial problem in my constituency with youths using and misusing motor bikes in an area that is a site of special scientific interest. When I read the reference to the prohibition of off-road driving under clause 53(1), it occurred to me that that might provide the powers about which I have been in extensive correspondence with the Minister's predecessors for some years.

Since 1997, I must have exchanged a dozen letters about the problem with Ministers at the Home Office and at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was. Is the provision intended specifically to be a response to such letters, because I know that other hon. Members have had problems of off-road driving in country areas? Equally, we must be aware that there are legitimate off-road drivers and some have permission to drive 4x4 vehicles on certain designated areas in my constituency, where they are not contravening the law. They are also anxious that their sport should not be prevented. Did the Home Office consult motoring and enthusiast organisations before the provisions were drafted?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

Having spent some time before the jubilee holiday walking the ox drove between Salisbury and Shaftesbury where the ruts in the road were sometimes up to 4 ft deep because of four-wheel drive enthusiasts, I am temped to extend the legislation to cover the confiscation of those vehicles. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen, however, because the Bill is concerned about the use of vehicles without lawful authority. It would not extend to the

unmetalled highways on which people have the right to drive such vehicles, unless a road traffic offence was being committed.

Many members of the Committee will have received letters from their constituents about such issues. Westwood in my constituency converges on the eastern edge of Southampton. It is one of the last remaining woodlands on that side of the city. It has been plagued by motor cyclists for several years and many other MPs will have had problems either with the off-road use of vehicles and motor cycles or the persistent misuse of the highway in an antisocial manner. The intention of the clause is to deal with that.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a useful point. It is necessary to be able to use the powers set out in subsection (3) after the event, provided that the individual had been warned previously. There are familiar circumstances, such as off-road motor cycle use, where it will not always be realistic for police officers to intervene to apprehend the individual or seize the vehicle, while the vehicle is being used. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a power to seize the vehicle later that day, or the next day, if it is identified in a nearby area of housing. Indeed, it would significantly weaken this measure if that power were not available.

The constable will still have to have previously warned the individual that if they do not discipline their behaviour their vehicle might be seized, and he will still have to believe that there had been a breach of the RTA, or that alarm, distress or annoyance had been caused.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

With respect to the Minister, I am unsure whether it is true that someone has to have been warned. Subsection (5) states that the requirement to give a warning does not apply if the circumstances make it impractical for the constable to give the warning. Therefore, a constable might identify a situation where someone is driving in a manner that causes alarm or contravenes the RTA and attempt to give a warning—or want to—but fail to do so. That constable might then decide to seize the motor vehicle but be unable to do so, but at a subsequent unspecified date—it could be as much as six months later—invokes subsection (2), which enables him to seize the vehicle retrospectively. Is that not possible?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right about the warning; I apologise for having misled the Committee on that point. Subsection (5) would allow for a vehicle to be seized under subsection (2), if it had been impractical for a constable to give a warning.

The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation. However, it is of paramount importance that the police should be able to act after the event, if the legislation is to be sensible. I do not think it would be helpful to introduce an arbitrary time limit for that, as the right course of action could depend on the circumstances.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

I am slightly concerned that these measures against antisocial behaviour are very widely framed. I am unsure whether a reference to vehicles that cause alarm, distress or annoyance to the public is the right way for us to phrase this legislation. I was recently going around Hyde Park corner when I saw a bright yellow Rolls-Royce convertible in which A. A. Gill was riding, and I can well imagine that many members of the public would find that sight extremely distressing, and that others would find it annoying. Some people drive around in an annoying and ostentatious way; they squeal their brakes, and so forth.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. That is totally outside the confines of the debate.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. O'Brien. I have no wish to discuss the restaurant critic of The Sunday Times.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a point on which he sought clarification. He has corrected me on my interpretation of the clause, so I hope that will be on the record. I understand the issue that he has raised but, in practical terms, the power in subsection (2) is necessary to make sense of the rest of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.